US warships near Syrian waters

[Dashenka]

I think something should be done about Assad IF there is some real proof that it's Assad behind the sarin gas. Mr. Kerry reading some papers for me (and for a lot of European countries) isn't enough proof to warrant any military intervention but when that is proven without a doubt, I would be extremely surprised and disappointed in the 'world leading' countries if they did nothing about Assad other than 'showing him a lesson' for using the sarin gas.

[Imogen]

You have a very bad habit of only responding to the part of a post that you can use to further an argument.

Please re-read what I have posted, specifically the part where I stated we have not been asked for help.

As for my personal opinion on the matter... seeing that it is my flesh and blood that would be sent over there, especially considering what his MOS is in the military, no I don't want to get involved. I do not want to lose the child I carried, birth and raised for a bunch of ungrateful people who think the US needs to burn.

I don't think the 'Syrian people' are in any position to ask for help. Not just because the country is in war and communication isn't all that easy but also because it is hard to define who to consider 'the Syrian people". Are those: the government? The rebels? Random people (of who we don't know if they belong to any group?) Who should ask for help? The rebels did - in 2012- and as far as I know the Arab League (refer to my earlier post where an article is linked) gave political and financial support. If the rebels count, they asked for help back in March, if this article is correct.

Still, I don't think seperate nations should become involved. The decision is with the UN. If Governments feel that action is imperative then diplomatic/politic pressure should be put on those countries blocking the UN decisions. That's more or less my political point of view, but if I'm honest I'm not sure I'd support even that. The rebels in Syria aren't exactly friendly, harmless people either, and I cringe at the thought of what a full year of financial support from the Arab League may have provided them with. Seen in that light, the war is already an international one with Russia/China aiding the Government and the Arab League (and maybe others) supplying the rebels. Do I want those poor sods who signed up for the army (US or UN) being sent over because this situation predictably got out of hand? In my opinion, that's far too much to ask of anyone.

[mia h]

The EU have had thier hands tie or more accurately tied thier own hands, at least until today. There was an EU agreement to send or sell any arms to Syria, I can't remember when it was implemented but the agreement expired last night because both the UK and France wouldn't sign the extension to the agreement. Being able to legally provide weapons is one thing, it's now a question of political will and with the very real fear that any weapons given to Syrian rebels might disappear and resurface in Afghanistan, chances are those arms shipments still won't happen.

[Imogen]

I think something should be done about Assad IF there is some real proof that it's Assad behind the sarin gas. Mr. Kerry reading some papers for me (and for a lot of European countries) isn't enough proof to warrant any military intervention but when that is proven without a doubt, I would be extremely surprised and disappointed in the 'world leading' countries if they did nothing about Assad other than 'showing him a lesson' for using the sarin gas.

So, Sarin gas is the deal breaker? Not the deaths? He can bomb them with anything else, but just don't throw Sarin gas! And if he does that despite our warning, we should take the risk of killing civilians too, to get the message across that those other 99.700 were okay, but that those 300 really should have been killed in a different manner?

Yeah. Sarin gas is terrible. It killed approx 300 people in a terrible way...  But really, do you think those other 99.700 people who died as a result of the civil war died pleasantly?

[Ephiral]

This has nothing to do with China or Russia.

Exactly why do you think I'm so pessimistic about UN intervention? (Hint: Which UN Security Council member is a longtime ally of Assad?)

So let me get this straight...

when Russia implements a law preventing propaganda towards homosexuality, the world's too small and everybody is saying how terrible that is to oppress a minority group in Russia.

But when a dictator uses sarin gas against his own people we should all sit tight and do nothing...


Wow... just.. wow...

I'm speechless.

Who said "do nothing"? I, for one, said "gather more data and make sure we're taking the right action". The difference? In Russia, what should be done is extremely clear-cut: Stop oppressing people. Stop supporting oppression. Are you really arguing that it's that straightforward in Syria?

I don't think the 'Syrian people' are in any position to ask for help. Not just because the country is in war and communication isn't all that easy but also because it is hard to define who to consider 'the Syrian people". Are those: the government? The rebels? Random people (of who we don't know if they belong to any group?) Who should ask for help? The rebels did - in 2012- and as far as I know the Arab League (refer to my earlier post where an article is linked) gave political and financial support. If the rebels count, they asked for help back in March, if this article is correct.

The civilians. The people caught between two groups of terrorists. The ones who aren't committing atrocities as part of their core strategy. We do not have to choose to support either the government or the rebels - I'm leaning toward "destroy them both" if combat turns out to be the best option.

[Dashenka]

So, Sarin gas is the deal breaker? Not the deaths? He can bomb them with anything else, but just don't throw Sarin gas! And if he does that despite our warning, we should take the risk of killing civilians too, to get the message across that those other 99.700 were okay, but that those 300 really should have been killed in a different manner?

Yeah. Sarin gas is terrible. It killed approx 300 people in a terrible way...  But really, do you think those other 99.700 people who died as a result of the civil war died pleasantly?

No I think something should be done regardless.

[Imogen]

The EU have had thier hands tie or more accurately tied thier own hands, at least until today. There was an EU agreement to send or sell any arms to Syria, I can't remember when it was implemented but the agreement expired last night because both the UK and France wouldn't sign the extension to the agreement. Being able to legally provide weapons is one thing, it's now a question of political will and with the very real fear that any weapons given to Syrian rebels might disappear and resurface in Afghanistan, chances are those arms shipments still won't happen.

When supplying weapons there is no guarantee who they'll be used against. Those weapons don't even need to disappear to become a very real threat. As far as I know the rebels aren't any more inclined towards the USA/Europe than the current regime.

[Imogen]

The civilians. The people caught between two groups of terrorists. The ones who aren't committing atrocities as part of their core strategy. We do not have to choose to support either the government or the rebels - I'm leaning toward "destroy them both" if combat turns out to be the best option.

And you will identify them how?

[ShadowFox89]

So the US Military should ONLY protect the US?

Do you see the Russians or Chinese rushing to help other nations? Because I sure as hell don't.

[Dashenka]

You should look better. But that's not the point.

Russia or China never claimed to be a world leaders, some people in the US did.

[Ephiral]

And you will identify them how?

I don't know. Offhand, I'd say look for the people who aren't busy shooting at each other, but I fully admit I'm not exactly an expert here. Fortunately, nobody ever expected everything at both the tactical and strategic level to be designed by a single person, as that would be stupid.

You should look better. But that's not the point.

Russia or China never claimed to be a world leaders, some people in the US did.

So Russia and China aren't leading, permanent members of a global organization explicitly and specifically tasked with maintaining international peace and security? You might want to spread the word in New York, then - people seem pretty convinced that they are.

[Dashenka]

I never said Russia and China AREN'T world leaders. I know they are world leaders, just not in terms of combat power. In terms of army and combat experience, the USA leads the boat. The reason Russia (and perhaps China as well) hold out against an intervention in Syria is because it's not their business. For some people in this topic that seems to be legitimate reasons to do nothing.

In every war in the last decade, the US had a (leading) role, for one reason or another. You can't deny they have the experience. The reason why countries like the Netherlands and Germany are now holding off a complete 'yes we can' to Obama is because they have been tricked into a war before when Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I have no doubt that once proven by the UN that it was indeed Assad who used the sarin gas, those countries will too join a coalition with the US.

Putin has also said that if Assad really used the sarin gas, it wasn't smart of him to do so but he as well has his doubts as to whether it really was Assad or another party wanting to get the US or UN to be involved.

[Kythia]

and Germany are now holding off a complete 'yes we can' to Obama is because they have been tricked into a war before when Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

I never get tired of doing this.

The German constitution forbids its armed forces from leaving NATO territory (which Syria isn't).  That's why Germany aren't going in.

[Ephiral]

I never said Russia and China AREN'T world leaders. I know they are world leaders, just not in terms of combat power. In terms of army and combat experience, the USA leads the boat. The reason Russia (and perhaps China as well) hold out against an intervention in Syria is because it's not their business. For some people in this topic that seems to be legitimate reasons to do nothing.

For any plan involving the UN, this is a legitimate reason to do nothing. This is why Russia and China are a problem. Given that Iraq pretty much murdered the legitimacy of ad-hoc coalitions, there seems to be a Problem here.

Also: If you are admitting that they are world leaders, then exactly what difference does it make whether they "claimed to be" or not? They are, and they exercise the rights and privileges this brings them. They don't need to be combat leaders here - nobody's asking them to put boots on the ground. They can do the right thing, in this case, by doing literally nothing. So what's their excuse, again?

In every war in the last decade, the US had a (leading) role, for one reason or another. You can't deny they have the experience. The reason why countries like the Netherlands and Germany are now holding off a complete 'yes we can' to Obama is because they have been tricked into a war before when Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I have no doubt that once proven by the UN that it was indeed Assad who used the sarin gas, those countries will too join a coalition with the US.

I will bet you any amount of money you care to name, right now, that Germany will not commit any forces to any action in Syria or Syrian waters. You are factually wrong on this point, for reasons that have been explained repeatedly.

Putin has also said that if Assad really used the sarin gas, it wasn't smart of him to do so but he as well has his doubts as to whether it really was Assad or another party wanting to get the US or UN to be involved.

So a noncommittal wag of the finger. Is this supposed to get him brownie points?

[Dashenka]

I don't see your problem. We agree on this?

Nobody should do anything until there are more guarantees. Russia or China have nothing to do with this.

[Ephiral]

I don't see your problem. We agree on this?

Nobody should do anything until there are more guarantees.

Yes.

Russia or China have nothing to do with this.

Given that they will block the most legitimate channel of action, regardless of the action, I have to disagree here. Should their positions suddenly reverse from what pretty much everybody is expecting - justifiably so, given their long-established voting history and Russia's alliance - or even openly state that they will not veto UN intervention, then I will agree that they are not relevant to this discussion.

[Dashenka]

As the bloke in the video said that I linked.

Don't start with the legitimacy of the veto's of Russia and China. The US has blocked millions of things when it came to the millions of crimes against humanity commited by Israel. The whole world wanted to bring them to justice, including Russia and China but the US veto'd that every time.

Whether or not Russia or China are going to be involved is not the question. They won't. So the civilized countries have to make a statement alone, without these two.

[mia h]

I never said Russia and China AREN'T world leaders. I know they are world leaders, just not in terms of combat power.

In a conventional war between the US & China the US would lose everytime just because of size of the armed forces China can muster. The was a disagreement between a US Airforce General and one of his Chinese counterparts. The US General declared the US airforce was much better because it was so technologically advanced compared the Chinese Airforce and Chinese planes would be shot down by superior US missile technology. The response from the Chinese was simple "You'll run out of missiles before we run out of planes"

The reason Russia (and perhaps China as well) hold out against an intervention in Syria is because it's not their business. For some people in this topic that seems to be legitimate reasons to do nothing.

No, it's very much the business of the Russian's, they want a power broker in the Middle East and Assad is their guy. Which might explain why Russia has been supplying Assad's regime with weapons for the past two years even after promising not to get involved. If it really wasn't their business when\if it came to a UN Security Council vote both China and Russia could just abstain and let everyone else do what they wanted but they won't, one or both will veto any Security Council resolution

[Dashenka]

In a conventional war between the US & China the US would lose everytime just because of size of the armed forces China can muster. The was a disagreement between a US Airforce General and one of his Chinese counterparts. The US General declared the US airforce was much better because it was so technologically advanced compared the Chinese Airforce and Chinese planes would be shot down by superior US missile technology. The response from the Chinese was simple "You'll run out of missiles before we run out of planes"

No, it's very much the business of the Russian's, they want a power broker in the Middle East and Assad is their guy. Which might explain why Russia has been supplying Assad's regime with weapons for the past two years even after promising not to get involved. If it really wasn't their business when\if it came to a UN Security Council vote both China and Russia could just abstain and let everyone else do what they wanted but they won't, one or both will veto any Security Council resolution

Hold on there. Russia has quite a few 'power brokers' in the middle east, they don't need Assad for that. Secondly, Russia has suspended delivering planes to Syria because they haven't paid yet. Wouldn't be surprised if they have suspended more weaponry to Syria because of the lack of payment.

They could abstain but why would they? I mean I know why they would but Putin and his Chinese counterpart are both head strong and stubborn men. If the US blocks our resolutions towards Israel, we block theirs towards Syria. It's all politics, nothing more, nothing else and every halfwit can do politics.

[Ephiral]

Don't start with the legitimacy of the veto's of Russia and China. The US has blocked millions of things when it came to the millions of crimes against humanity commited by Israel. The whole world wanted to bring them to justice, including Russia and China but the US veto'd that every time.

And? My position is not that the US is and always has been right. It is that blocking humanitarian action by other parties, merely to score political points, is wrong. This does not change depending on the party doing the blocking.

Whether or not Russia or China are going to be involved is not the question. They won't. So the civilized countries have to make a statement alone, without these two.

You may want to review what I've actually said. I am not trying to raise the question of whether Russia and China are going to be, or even should be, involved. What I am calling for Russia and China to do here is literally nothing. At all. The reason they are a problem is that they prevent the UN from acting, and ad-hoc coalitions have been poisoned (and nations are hesitant to join them) in the wake of Iraq. If we can't do it ad-hoc, and we can't do it with established international communities... what does that leave?

[Dashenka]

They could abstain but why would they? I mean I know why they would but Putin and his Chinese counterpart are both head strong and stubborn men. If the US blocks our resolutions towards Israel, we block theirs towards Syria. It's all politics, nothing more, nothing else and every halfwit can do politics.

[Ephiral]

Silly me, thinking that people should do the right thing and holding them accountable when they fail to do so. I thought we were discussing what should be done here; my mistake.

[Neysha]

Don't start with the legitimacy of the veto's of Russia and China. The US has blocked millions of things when it came to the millions of crimes against humanity commited by Israel. The whole world wanted to bring them to justice, including Russia and China but the US veto'd that every time.

Good point. How many UN resolutions from the General Assembly and USOC and the HRC have been issued against Israel in comparison to say.... Zimbabwe or Sudan or Syria or Palestine or Myanmar or North Korea?

Hold on there. Russia has quite a few 'power brokers' in the middle east, they don't need Assad for that. Secondly, Russia has suspended delivering planes to Syria because they haven't paid yet. Wouldn't be surprised if they have suspended more weaponry to Syria because of the lack of payment.

Syria is the home of the only major Russian military base outside of Russia. Where exactly are they going to broker power now that they've alienated the Sunni's in the Middle East through their support of the Assad regime and of Qaddafi prior in Libya? Iran perhaps? That should win them a lot of points with the power brokers of the Middle East.

[Callie Del Noire]

So, Sarin gas is the deal breaker? Not the deaths? He can bomb them with anything else, but just don't throw Sarin gas! And if he does that despite our warning, we should take the risk of killing civilians too, to get the message across that those other 99.700 were okay, but that those 300 really should have been killed in a different manner?

Yeah. Sarin gas is terrible. It killed approx 300 people in a terrible way...  But really, do you think those other 99.700 people who died as a result of the civil war died pleasantly?

Uh.. actually the number, not including the gassing of Kurds in the past, is something like 1400. There were around 400+ children in one incident. Not 300. I looked at a lot of articles.. not one said only 300.

for Example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

[gaggedLouise]

They could abstain but why would they? I mean I know why they would but Putin and his Chinese counterpart are both head strong and stubborn men. If the US blocks our resolutions towards Israel, we block theirs towards Syria. It's all politics, nothing more, nothing else and every halfwit can do politics.

Well, it's not doing a great deal for Russia's political and diplomatic credibility, in case they'd like to regain some of their stature.

You might point your fingers at the U.S. for sending ships to the Mediterranean without getting ready to actually make any landings in Syria, but when was the last time the Russian navy stuck out its head and scored any kind of victory in a war? As far as I know, that hasn't even happened since the 19th century.